|
HCAL 1204/2019
[2023] HKCFI 1250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1204 of 2019
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
Nalumansi Aziiza |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
Torture Claims Appeal Board/ |
Putative |
| |
Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office |
Respondent |
| |
and |
|
| |
Director of Immigration |
Putative |
| |
|
Interested Party |
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)
Following;
Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:
Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.
Observations for the Applicant:
1. The applicant remains in Hong Kong without permission of the Director of Immigration. She lodged non-refoulement claim with the Immigration Department and was rejected by the Director of Immigration. She appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (the “Board”). The Board dismissed her appeal.
2. The applicant filed Form 86 on 6 May 2019 for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.
3. The applicant filed an affirmation on 26 August 2019 to the court, in which she stated that she wanted to withdraw her application for judicial review as she wants to return to her own country and her problem in her country had been solved.
4. As the case was about to be called and determined on its merits, the Court, by its letter dated 29 August 2019, informed the applicant that her case would be listed for hearing; and if she was absent, her application would be determined in her absence.
5. However, the file was misplaced and was retrieved recently. The judicial clerk had called the applicant to ensure that her intention of withdrawing remains. But the judicial clerk was unable to keep in touch with her. In the circumstances, this Court will proceed with her applicant for withdrawal since there is no other evidence to show that she had changed her mind.
6. In accordance with the Court of Appeal in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 at §19:
“(1) The applicant on his own motion applied to the Court to withdraw his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Judge acceded to his application, whereupon there was nothing outstanding in the action. The Judge was correct to conclude the action by ordering a dismissal of the application instead of leaving the action at large.”
7. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated the 16th day of May 2023
| |
(M.O. WONG)(Ms)
for Registrar, High Court
|
Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence
Notes for the Applicant:
If leave has been granted, the Applicant or the Applicant’s solicitors must:
|
|
|
|
|
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted (Order 53, rule 4A);
b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and
c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).
|
|
Sent to the Applicant
On16/5/2023
Nalumansi Aziiza
Applicant’s ref. no:
Nil. |
|
Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 16/5/2023
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 7097/17/5/103/U42
Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 236/17 (formerly RBCZ 3000080/14)
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2) |
Form CALL-1
|